(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Ramanujam, J. by which the learned Judge has held that the direction contained in the Order F.2. 77901/81, issued by the District Supply Officer, Nagarcoil as the licensing authority, dt. 10-2-1981, was justified and that it was within the powers of the licensing authority to give the said direction which had the effect of reducing the quantum of rice which the appellant was entitled to possess and store.
(2.) The State Government had promulgated an order called the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the 1974 Order. Under Cl.8 of the said Order, retail trade in paddy or rice could not be carried on unless a person registered himself as a retailer with the licensing authority. The licensing authority under the order was the District Supply Officer. Cl.14 of this 1974 Order vested in the Government, the Commissioner and the Collector or the licensing authority power to issue directions from time to time for the purpose of maintaining the supplies of paddy and rice, and for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, to give effect to the provisions of the order and all dealers and persons were obliged to comply with such directions. In addition to the general power to issue directions, specific subjects were mentioned in R.14(2) of 1974 Order, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :-
(3.) Admittedly, under the licence issued to the petitioner appellant, he was entitled to store for sale rice to the extent of 50 quintals. However, by the impugned direction the licensing authority purporting to act in exercise of the power under Cl.14(2)(e) of the 1974 order, made an order fixing a ceiling of 10 quintals of rice for retail registration certificate holder per week. This order, it is claimed, became necessary because of the scarcity position of the paddy and rice in taluks, namely, Kalkulam and Vilavancode of Kanyakumari district.